الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 203 |  |  |
| | | from | 203 | | |
Abstract
Language proficiency requires being proficient in all language skills namely,
listening, reading, writing and speaking. This process cannot be successful unless there is a
qualified teacher and an attentive student, besides other variables like the curricula taught
and the learning environment. Therefore, learning English as a foreign language (EFL),
specifically writing, requires guidance from experienced teachers or language instructors.
Part of this guidance comes in the form of teachers’ written feedback on students’ writing
assignments, which is mostly characterized by being random especially in the Egyptian
context. This research is, hence, important as it studies the effect of teachers’ Written
Corrective Feedback (WCF) on EFL students’ writing accuracy.
The study of WCF started since the sixties by the scholars of Second Language
Acquisition (SLA) and Second Language (L2) writing. Although SLA scholars and L2
researchers have studied feedback theoretically as well as empirically, no consensus to date
has been reached as to the ideal WCF type. In addition, some linguist like Truscott (1996)
are not only opposing to the use of grammar feedback, they also claim that it is even
detrimental to the writing accuracy of EFL students. However, Ferris (1999, 2004), through
several primary as well as secondary research, testifies to the potentially positive role of
WCF bearing in mind students’ levels, their error types as well as the material taught.
This research aims at investigating the nature of teachers’ WCF in relation to its
focus and type and whether this WCF has a positive effect on the writing accuracy of the
EFL students. The research also investigates the beliefs of the Egyptian EFL instructors
about WCF and whether such beliefs match their practices or not. Moreover, the study also
explores students’ views regarding their teachers’ WCF practices and whether there is a
match thereof or not. The study was conducted on the first year students at the German
University in Cairo (GUC) through analyzing students’ argumentative essays in relation to
their teachers’ WCF on the students’ errors.
This research consists of five chapters. The first chapter is an introduction about the
study identifying its rationale, problem, significance and research questions. Second, the
literature review provides different senses for WCF, summarizes the empirical research on
WCF and establishes the theoretical framework for the current study. Third, the
192
methodology chapter describes in detail the research design by identifying the research
participates, tools, and procedures. It also shows the data analyses procedures. Fourth, the
results chapter provides the findings of the current study in detail. It shows the foci and
types of the two participating teachers’ WCF. It also demonstrates the efficacy of such foci
and types on students’ writing accuracy. Also teacher’s beliefs as well as students views
regarding WCF are also presented. Finally, the discussion chapter concludes the research by
synthesizing its results with the findings of the relevant literature in order to confirm, refute
or add any conclusions about WCF in the EFL context. It also demonstrates the limitations
of the study, practical implications and suggestions for future research.
Research Questions
1. What are the types and the foci of the written corrective feedback (WCF) that the
sample teachers used on the sample argumentative essays?
2. How do the types and the foci of this written corrective feedback affect students’
writing accuracy as reflected in the sample of argumentative essays?
3. To what extent do the teachers’ perspectives of WCF differ from their actual written
corrective feedback?
4. What are the students’ perspectives on their teachers’ written corrective feedback?
Research Methodology
The researcher collected students’ argumentative essays and analyzed teachers’
comments on them. Also the researcher analyzed teachers’ as well as students’
questionnaires.
Participants
Two Egyptian English instructors and 21 Egyptian first year GUC students from two
classes participated in this study. This means that there is a sample of 42 argumentative
essays because each student writes two essays. The two participating teachers are females of
193
fairly similar teaching experiences, and the students are identified as intermediate students
based on the placement test they take upon enrollment at the university.
Research Tools
The researcher collected 42 argumentative essays from two different classes and
analyzed the teachers’ comments in them according to the taxonomy attached to the study.
In relation to focus the comments may be form-related, content, or rhetorical. In relation to
type, the comments are divided into comprehensive vs. selective, direct vs. indirect, coded
vs. uncoded, and positive vs. negative. The researcher also compared the number of
comments as well as students grades in both sets of essays. The researcher also distributed a
questionnaire to the teacher and another one to the students.
Procedures
The researcher analyzed the teachers’ comments as they naturally write them
without inducing any intervention on the students; the researcher did not ask the class
teachers to unify the writing prompts or to practice a certain type of feedback. The
researcher also analyzed teachers’ comments on two sets of essays, first essays and second
essays to either confirm or refute WCF efficacy on students’ writing accuracy. This is done
through comparing the number of comments as well as students’ grades in both essays. The
researcher also analyzed teachers’ questionnaires in order to arrive at any potential matches
or mismatches between their beliefs and actual practices of WCF. Moreover, the researcher
analyzed students’ questionnaires to examine whether students’ preferences regarding their
teachers’ WCF do match their teachers’ actual practices or not.
Research Results
To answer the first research question, which is “What are the types and the foci of
the written corrective feedback (WCF) that the sample teachers used on the sample
argumentative essays?” the results shows that the two participating teachers use a
194
comprehensive mixture of direct and indirect WCF of mostly negative uncoded comments;
the teachers comment on all aspects of students’ writing. Also one of the teachers tends to
use indirect feedback rather than direct while the other one does the opposite. Moreover, one
of the teachers makes use of correction codes, while the other uses none of them.
Concerning the second research question, which is “How do the types and the foci of
this written corrective feedback affect students’ writing accuracy as reflected in the sample
of argumentative essays?” the results show that the direct uncoded feedback is much more
effective than the indirect coded feedback on the writing accuracy of the Egyptian EFL
students.
Regarding the third question, which is “To what extent do the teachers’ perspectives
of WCF differ from their actual written corrective feedback?” the findings shoe that there
several mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and their actual practices of WCF. For
example, although both teachers believe that it’s students who should correct their own
errors, they provide comprehensive direct and indirect feedback.
Finally, for the fourth research question, which is “What are the students’
perspectives on their teachers’ written corrective feedback?” the results show that mostly
students’ preferences match their teachers’ actual practices. For example, students do value
comprehensive direct feedback. However students’ are not always aware of their teachers’
practices as the majority of the students reported that their teachers use correction codes,